Another Perspective on the Pushback Against BEE and Equity Policies: Who is BEE working for?

I know my views are going to be unpopular as always…

While the anti-equity debate in South Africa usually focuses on efficiency or fairness, this opinion piece shifts the lens to a moral and structural failure on the part of the beneficiaries themselves.

It is an attempt to create a modern application of Frantz Fanon’s warnings about the “national middle class” (or the national bourgeoisie) in post-colonial states: a class that serves as a transmission line between the nation and a capitalism that remains rampant, yet provides no real productivity.

One thing communities really see and continue to witness is that BBBEE and even Affirmative Action are Rolls-Royces, flashy lifestyles and not reinvestment in black communities to upgrade lives.

This point has been missing in the recent anti-equity debates (e.g., Professor Gumede’s academic research, litigation against codes for the legal profession (Ngcukaitobi et al.), and the DA legal challenge on employment equity).

Of course, the journey to democratise capital in South Africa is a noble one, but the problem starts with whom we entrust this process. Thus, this write-up provides an internal critique of South Africa’s economic transformation journey by asking a more uncomfortable question: Who is BEE working for?

It appears many BEE beneficiaries lack politics, or “national consciousness” (Fanon), to deeply understand why economic democratisation is not necessarily about them but the whole previously oppressed class (mainly black people).

The same for senior managers (public and private sectors) and leading academics or professionals, their rise is not their own volition (usually framed as black excellence or ‘God’s chosen child’) but it’s again about the previously oppressed.

Today, people lament Ngcukaitobi’s brief by white firms to fight the Legal Sector Code, which is also sponsored by the Solidarity Union. There are more questions, rightfully so, about his conduct than the questionable mannerisms or outlook of BEE beneficiaries.

BEE beneficiaries (and their organisations, such as BMF, BBC, etc.) are largely absent from crucial debates about taking the country forward, but only seem to wake up when their direct interests are at stake. They seem not to understand that their role, not the government’s, is to lead discussions on unemployment, rural/township economic development, quelling the growing anti-foreign sentiment, and so on.

However, they seem to mutate into tenderpreneurs (scavengers) and so-called business forums like Amadela Ngokubona (criminals), as well as conduits of crime and corruption(as witnessed in Madlanga, Zondo commissions). Black communities do not real time Hollywood movies, where opulent individuals display their wealth but expect a payback from BEE beneficiaries.

BEE beneficiaries play a double game of pressuring the government to serve their interests, but step back when the government is under pressure to create jobs and advance black life.

Unfortunately for the ANC, its demise is occasioned by those it (with the help of white capital) “selected” to benefit from black economic empowerment and employment equity programmes. Its current downward spiral was always to be expected, but the beneficiaries of its policies chose conspicuous consumption over helping in advancing the broader political goals.

That is not to absolve the former liberation movement completely of its glaring shortsightedness and misdemeanours, including creating self-serving entities like Chancellor House, allowing trade-union capitalism, and creating bogus businessmen to siphon public funds.

My central thesis here is that BEE has failed its social contract. The noble goal of democratising capital has been overshadowed by the behaviour of those it uplifted. By focusing on scavenging and showing off rather than re-investment, the beneficiaries have inadvertently provided the most potent ammunition to those who wish to see equity policies dismantled entirely.

As expected, a downward spiral in which the very people meant to be the vanguard of a new economy have become, in the eyes of many, its primary looters. South Africa’s problem lies in the dominance of the upper class of the “politique du ventre” (politics of the belly), both politically and economically. Rather, we need a “patriotic bourgeois”, for lack of better phrasing, to be created from all forms of empowerment.

Fanon’s solution was for the masses to bypass this middle class and create a truly democratic, decentralised economy. This is essentially where abo hablembeleni (Abahambe Brigade and Bantustanists) should be directing their energy: a new popular-led economy.

Siya yi banga le economy!